商店页面
Company of Heroes 2
全部 讨论 截图 艺术作品 实况直播 视频 创意工坊 新闻 指南 评测

Company of Heroes 2

商店页面
Company of Heroes 2 >  创意工坊 > SneakEye 的创意工坊 > All Units (170 added) > 讨论
All Units (170 added)
描述 讨论168 留言9432 改动说明
Kristofferson 2019 年 9 月 9 日 上午 2:03
U.S. artillery and defense
Hello, I've noticed that the U.S. does not have as many defensive structures like the Russians or British and wondered if some of the defensive structures from them could be added to the U.S. faction. Also, I'd be really nice if the Russian had singular defensive sandbags like the U.S. which would make it infinitely easier to make larger defensive positions in an organized manner as it's borderline painful to do so with the defensive sandbag position that the Russians have. Also I noticed the 75mm pak howiitzer and 105mm preist artillery guns have very short range than I personally think they should. Finally I was wonder if the U.S. could finally for once have tbe 105mm and possible even the 155mm or 205mm howitzer added to their faction as the U.S. both in the base game and this tuning pack severely lack in any artillery dispite have great artillery option from the original COH1 game.
< >
正在显示第 1 - 9 条，共 9 条留言
SneakEye  [开发者] 2019 年 9 月 9 日 上午 10:19 
Short answer: Unique faction design.

Long(er) answer:
The US is focused on mobile units. The Priest and Calliope fit perfectly in it. They also have the Pack Howitzer, which is pretty useful for its cost. I intent to keep all ranges equal to the vanilla game. The Soviets have many defenses, which includes the strongest sandbag wall. I think it is fair that such a defense has a small down-side.
#1
ThePendulum 2019 年 9 月 12 日 上午 11:37 
My only wish, is that the US had stationary artillery of a larger caliber like they did in the first CoH. :(
#2
Kristofferson 2019 年 9 月 15 日 上午 12:24 
yeah same here, the U.S. were well known to use stationary artillery.
#3
Pondera the Radio Angel 2019 年 9 月 26 日 上午 8:23 
引用自 Kristofferson：
yeah same here, the U.S. were well known to use stationary artillery.

I tried to look that up, and didn't find anything. I'm not sure if that fits with the WW2 US combat doctrine either. I mean... their stuff was mostly designed to get put on a ship and ferried over to combat zones in the European theater. Why would they want stationary stuff? They weren't defending their own nation, but adjusting to changing battle lines and kicking the $hit out of the Nazis.
#4
excelatrate 2019 年 9 月 27 日 上午 12:59 
引用自 Admiral Casual：
引用自 Kristofferson：
yeah same here, the U.S. were well known to use stationary artillery.

I tried to look that up, and didn't find anything. I'm not sure if that fits with the WW2 US combat doctrine either. I mean... their stuff was mostly designed to get put on a ship and ferried over to combat zones in the European theater. Why would they want stationary stuff? They weren't defending their own nation, but adjusting to changing battle lines and kicking the $hit out of the Nazis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/240_mm_howitzer_M1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-inch_Gun_M1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.5-inch_Gun_M1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/155_mm_Gun_M1

Just a few examples of big boys being used historically in field combat (non-naval/coastal/railway) by the US, many requiring towing or an elaborate carriage.

The first one, known as the Black Dragon would be a very cool "unique unit" or something of the like. Make it a super effective late-game weapon but require intense resources or a special doctrine or something.

Historically it and the 8 inch gun both accomplished a lot on their own (for the US even!) in WW2 and many of the above guns went on to continue service in the Korean War for being so good!
最后由 excelatrate 编辑于; 2019 年 9 月 27 日 上午 1:08
#5
Pondera the Radio Angel 2019 年 9 月 27 日 下午 3:46 
oooohh... new knowledge. I thank you for this, Deer Trap, and cede the point. Well argued!
#6
excelatrate 2019 年 9 月 27 日 下午 9:42 
引用自 Admiral Casual：
oooohh... new knowledge. I thank you for this, Deer Trap, and cede the point. Well argued!

Wikipedia is the only website not blocked at my place of employment so I am attaining the most useless knowledge ever :happycrank:
#7
Pondera the Radio Angel 2019 年 9 月 27 日 下午 9:51 
引用自 Deer Trap：
引用自 Admiral Casual：
oooohh... new knowledge. I thank you for this, Deer Trap, and cede the point. Well argued!

Wikipedia is the only website not blocked at my place of employment so I am attaining the most useless knowledge ever :happycrank:

Where the heck do you work with regs that strict?
最后由 Pondera the Radio Angel 编辑于; 2019 年 9 月 27 日 下午 9:51
#8
excelatrate 2019 年 9 月 27 日 下午 11:05 
引用自 Admiral Casual：
引用自 Deer Trap：

Wikipedia is the only website not blocked at my place of employment so I am attaining the most useless knowledge ever :happycrank:

Where the heck do you work with regs that strict?

:apple:
#9
< >
正在显示第 1 - 9 条，共 9 条留言
每页显示数： 1530 50